Chavez vs.

Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547

February 19, 2017

Facts:

July 1963, Rosendo Chavez, plaintiff, brought his typewriter to Fructuoso Gonzales, defendant, a
typewriter repairman for the cleaning and servicing of the said typewriter. Three months later, the
plaintiff paid P6.00 to the defendant for the purchase of spare parts. Because of the delay of the repair
the plaintiff decided to recover the typewriter from the defendant which was wrapped like a package.
When he opened and examined it, the interior cover and some parts and screws were missing. October
29, 1963 the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant for the return of the missing parts, the interior cover
and the sum of P6.00. The following day, the defendant returned to the plaintiff only some of the missing
parts, the interior cover and the P6.00.

August 29, 1964, the plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas Business Machines, that cost him a
total of P89.85. A year later, the plaintiff filed an action before the City Court of Manila, demanding from
the defendant the payment for total of P1,190.00 for damages including attorney’s fees. The defendant
made no denials.

The repair invoice shows that the missing parts had a total value of P31.10 only.

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P31.10,
and the costs of suit.

Chaves appealed, because it only awarded the value of the missing parts of the typewriter, instead of the
whole cost of labor and materials that went into the repair of the machine. It is clear that the defendant-
appellee contravened the tenor of his obligation because not only did he not repair the typewriter but
returned it “in shambles”.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, the appealed judgment is hereby modified, by ordering the
defendant-appellee to pay, as he is hereby ordered to pay, the plaintiff-appellant the sum of P89.85, with
interest at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint. Costs in all instances against appellee Fructuoso
Gonzales.

Issue:

Whether or not the defendant is liable for the total cost of repair.

Held:

Yes. For such contravention, he is liable under Article 1167 of the Civil Code. For the cost of executing the
obligation in a proper manner. The cost of the execution of the obligation in this case should be the cost
of the labor or service expended in the repair of the typewriter.